Browse thread
Fw: [Caml-list] Complex numbers in OCaml
- David McClain
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | David McClain <dmcclain1@m...> |
| Subject: | Fw: [Caml-list] Complex numbers in OCaml |
----- Original Message ----- From: "David McClain" <dmcclain1@mindspring.com> To: "Xavier Leroy" <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 2:34 PM Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Complex numbers in OCaml > > As Markus mentioned, I'm considering extending the Bigarray module to > > handle complex numbers as well. This would help interfacing with > > Fortran, and provide essentially the same data representation than in > > C and Fortran. > > If you do this you need to be aware that: > > 1. Most C representations use arrays in which real and imaginary parts are > in adjacent memory addresses, interleaved throughout the entire array, and > > 2. Most Fortran representations use separate arrays for the real parts and > the imaginary parts. > > I say "most" based purely on my own personal experiences with all the glue > code I have had to write to interface to the IMSL, NAG, MatLab, BLAS, and > MKL code. > > My experiments here have shown me that there is a real speed penalty on > Pentium II and III architectures for the separate array versions of code, > contrasted with the interleaved structure versions. I can only assume that > this has to do with data locality and cache performance. > > I ultimately gave up trying to come up with a "standard" array > representation, except within my own little universe. I was quite surprised > to find that a data structure as fundamental as an array of numbers can have > so many different implementations. > > - DM > ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr